首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>The Journal of Physiology >Break excitation alone does not explain the delay and amplitude of anodal current-induced vasodilatation in human skin
【2h】

Break excitation alone does not explain the delay and amplitude of anodal current-induced vasodilatation in human skin

机译:单凭断裂激发并不能解释阳极电流引起的人皮肤血管舒张的延迟和幅度

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In iontophoresis experiments, a ‘non-specific’ current-induced vasodilatation interferes with the effects of the diffused drugs. This current-induced vasodilatation is assumed to rely on an axon reflex due to excitation of cutaneous nociceptors and is weaker and delayed at the anode as compared to the cathode. We analysed whether these anodal specificities could result from a break excitation of nociceptors. Break excitation is the generation of action potentials at the end of a square anodal DC current application, which are generally weaker than those observed at the onset of a same application at the cathode. In eight healthy volunteers, we studied forearm cutaneous laser Doppler flow (LDF) responses to: (1) anodal and cathodal 100 μA current applications of 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 min; (2) 100 μA anodal applications of 3 min with a progressive ending over 100 s (total charge 23 mC); these were compared to square-ended 100 μA anodal applications of the same total charge (23 mC) or duration (3 min); (3) a 4 min 100 μA anodal application with a 333 msec break at half time. Results (mean ± S.D.) are expressed as percentage of heat-induced maximal vasodilatation (%MVD). Onset (Tvd) and amplitude (LDFpeak) of vasodilatation were determined. We observed that: Tvd was linearly related to the duration of current application at the anode (slope = 1.01, r2 = 0.99, P < 0.0001) but not at the cathode (slope = 0.03, r2 = 0.02, n.s.). Progressive ending of anodal current did not decrease LDFpeak (63.3 ± 24.6 %MVD) as compared to square-ending of current application of the same duration (36.9 ± 22.2 %MVD) or the same total charge (57.1 ± 23.5 %MVD). A transient break of anodal current did not allow for the vasodilatation to develop until current was permanently stopped. We conclude that, during iontophoresis, anodal break excitation alone cannot account for the delay and amplitude of the vascular response.
机译:在离子电渗疗法实验中,“非特异性”电流诱导的血管扩张干扰了扩散药物的作用。假定由于皮肤伤害感受器的激发,该电流诱导的血管舒张依赖轴突反射,并且与阴极相比在阳极处较弱且延迟。我们分析了这些阳极特异性是否可能由伤害感受器的断裂激发引起。断裂激发是在方形阳极直流电流施加结束时产生的动作电位,通常比在阴极相同施加开始时观察到的动作电位弱。在八名健康志愿者中,我们研究了前臂皮肤激光多普勒血流(LDF)对以下方面的反应:(1)阳极和阴极100μA当前应用1、2、3、4或5分钟; (2)在3分钟内进行100μA阳极处理,并在100 s内逐步结束(总电荷为23 mC);将这些与相同总电荷(23 mC)或持续时间(3分钟)的方端100μA阳极应用进行比较; (3)在100分钟的阳极上进行4分钟的电泳,中间时间为333毫秒。结果(平均值±标准偏差)表示为热诱导的最大血管舒张的百分比(%MVD)。确定了血管扩张的发作(Tvd)和振幅(LDFpeak)。我们观察到:Tvd与阳极电流施加的持续时间呈线性关系(斜率= 1.01,r 2 = 0.99,P <0.0001),而不与阴极电流施加(斜率= 0.03,r < sup> 2 = 0.02,ns)。与相同持续时间(36.9±22.2%MVD)或相同总电荷(57.1±23.5%MVD)的电流施加的平方结束相比,阳极电流的渐进结束不会降低LDFpeak(63.3±24.6%MVD)。阳极电流的短暂中断不允许血管扩张,直到电流永久停止。我们得出的结论是,在离子电渗疗法中,仅凭阳极折断激发无法解释血管反应的延迟和幅度。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号